IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Shri. Ramchandra Dev, Peth - Petitioner
Versus
The Ld. Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1346 of 2022
Decided On : 14-07-2022
Public Trust - Alienation of Immovable Property - Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1958, Section 36 - The court quashed and set aside the order rejecting the application for seeking permission to sell the trust property and directed the respondent to accept the highest bid of Rs.53,00,000 for the said land. The court emphasized the need for the respondent to justify and record satisfaction for high valuation based on comparable sale instances and material evidence, and concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable in law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a charitable trust, sought permission to sell a land parcel to raise funds for the renovation and redevelopment of its temple. The respondent rejected the application, stating that the land would fetch Rs.2 to 3 crores, despite the highest bid being Rs.53,00,000. The petitioner provided evidence of comparable sale instances to support the bid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's valuation lacked justification and material evidence, and the highest bid exceeded the ready-reckoner value. It concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable in law and directed the respondent to accept the highest bid for the land.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's application to sell the land based on the respondent's valuation, which the court found to be unjustified and unsupported by material evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the respondent to justify and record satisfaction for high valuation based on comparable sale instances and material evidence, and concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable in law.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned order, directing the respondent to accept the highest bid of Rs.53,00,000 for the land and complete the sale procedure within eight weeks or earlier.
JUDGMENT :
1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner - Trust has prayed the following reliefs:-
(b) Be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the Ld. Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur in application no. 25 of 2019 under section 36(1)(a) of a the Maharashtra Public Trust act and thereby rejecting the said application by an order dated 15.11.2021."
2. Petitioner is challenging the Order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur under the provisions of section 36(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1958 (for short "the said Act") while rejecting Application No. 25 of 2019 for seeking permission to sell property bearing Gat No.798 admeasuring 1.15 hectors / Ares situated in village Peth, taluka Walva, District Sangli (for short "the said land") belonging to the Petitioner. Petitioner has prayed for sale of the said land and for utilizing the sale proceeds for development of Petitioner's temple, renovation, construction of 'bhakta nivas' and marriage hall in the vicinity of its temple.
3. Respondent has argued that the impugned order has been passed after following the due process of law.
4. Such of the relevant facts which are necessary to adjudicate the grievance of the Petitioner are as follows:
4.1. Petitioner is a registered charitable Trust under the provisions of the said Act. Petitioner manages a temple of Lord Rama and which has appurtenant area admeasuring 1644.90 sq. mtrs. The temple is old and requires renovation and redevelopment, the total cost of which is approximately Rs.49,13,000.00.
4.2. Petitioner is owner of a land parcel bearing Gat No. 798 admeasuring 1.15 Hectors / Ares ("the said land"). The said land is vacant land and situated at a distance from the temple. Petitioner has decided to sell the said land and raise funds for renovation and redevelopment of its temple, construction of 'bhakta nivas' and 'marriage hall' in the temple premises / appurtenant premises.
4.3. On 19.7.2017, Petitioner published an advertisement in the local newspaper having wide circulation calling for offers/tenders. Four tenders were received, which were opened on 23.10.2017 in the meeting of the trust. The highest tender was accepted and a resolution came to be passed for its acceptance. Accordingly on 05.09.2018, Petitioner made an application to the Respondent for seeking permission under the provisions of section 36(1)(a) of the said Act. Alongwith the application Petitioner produced all relevant documents before the Respondent as required by law.
4.4. In consideration of the application, Respondent directed Petitioner to issue a fresh public sale notice, which was published on 06.02.2020 in two local newspapers.
4.5. In response to the fresh sale notice, two tenders were received, which were opened in the presence of the Respondent. The first offer was for Rs.44,99,000.00 and the second offer was for Rs.53,00,000.00. Both bidders were present and told to match the highest offer or increase the same. However, both bidders maintained their respective bids.
4.6. In furtherance of sale, on 23.11.2020, Respondent directed that a site inspection of the said land be undertaken.
4.7. On 29.01.2021, site inspection of the said land was conducted and an inspection report was prepared and placed before the Respondent. During inspection, three statements came to be recorded of the local villagers; statement of one Mr. Ramchandra stated that rate of sale of land in the vicinity of the said land would be around Rs.3,00,000/- per guntha; statement of one Mr. Rajaram stated that rate of sale of land in the vicinity of the said land would be around Rs.1,50,000/- per guntha whereas statement of one Mr. Dinkar Kadam state
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.